August 21, 2026
I: Introduction:
The vast majority of scientists who have studied climate agree that the world is experiencing a series of effects that have been caused by the large amounts of greenhouse gases (GHGs) that are being emitted into the atmosphere. The dominant cause of global climate change is human-induced effects, in particular, the use of fossil fuels for energy production and transportation. As detailed in the massive reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), over the past few decades global climate change has increased the frequency or severity of a number of extreme climate events. The past couple of decades have seen the development of a new set of quantitative methods called extreme event attribution studies or EEA. These extreme event studies are designed to show the extent to which global climate change factored into a number of types of these events, including extreme heat waves, flooding, the intensity and damage of tropical cyclones, severe droughts and wildfires.
In a recent blog post, we reviewed a July 2026 report by the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM). That report involved investigations of various EEA studies, in particular, it showed the progress in this field that had occurred following a first NASEM assessment of this field in 2016. The report was fairly dry and, on its face, did not appear to be particularly controversial. So we were surprised to find that this report had come under fire from a number of different sources. The present post is an examination of the sources of the attacks on attribution science and the arguments used by the critics.
In Section II, we provide a short review of extreme event attribution science. This is a summary of the much longer treatment in our recent post. In Section III we list various reasons behind the vilification of the NASEM report. The first is opposition from the fossil fuel industry. They are worried, and rightly so, that EEA studies will be used to bolster lawsuits claiming that GHG emissions have exacerbated the damages from extreme weather events. EEA studies are capable of showing the degree to which GHG emissions have harmed communities. A second group is Republican representatives, who support the oil and gas industry. They are arguing that groups performing EEA studies may be affiliated with organizations that have filed environmental lawsuits. This allows them to claim that these studies are inherently political, instead of being politically neutral scientific investigations.
A third element of opposition to EEA studies may be part of a larger MAGA attack on all scientists. The argument is that scientific studies show that global climate change is real and is producing serious environmental harm. Also, scientific studies show that vaccines are safe and effective, that autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder, and that HIV causes AIDS. Thus, MAGA advocates see scientists as being groups of politically motivated leftist elites who fail to support Trump administration policies.
In Section IV, we review a few of the lawsuits against either the fossil fuel industry or the government, for damages caused by global climate change. We show how EEA studies form a key element in the argument that GHG emissions caused climate change. The EEA studies claim to be able to determine quantitatively the extent to which certain extreme events were made possible, or intensified, by human-caused climate change.
II: What is Extreme Event Attribution Science?
Attribution science is a relatively new area dealing with extreme events in the environment. The goal of extreme event attribution science (EEA) is to develop methods that can determine the extent to which global climate change has contributed to extreme weather events. The National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) have released two reports on attribution science. The first, titled Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change, was released in March 2016. The second, titled Attribution of Extreme Weather and Climate Events and Their Impacts, was released in July 2026. The cover of the 2026 NASEM report is shown in Figure II.1. We recently wrote a post on our blog where we summarized the July 2026 NASEM report. There, we provided a detailed description of examples of four different types of EEA analysis, for extreme heat, extreme rainfall, flooding from tropical cyclones, and wildfires.
During the decade between the two NASEM reports there has been a great deal of progress in the field of attribution science. In this decade hundreds of papers, most of them peer-reviewed, have appeared in the scientific literature. Figure II.2 outlines the methods used in attribution science. First, one must define the event; the spatial and temporal characteristics of the event, as well as the metrics to be studied, must be clearly defined. The second step is to design a counterfactual. This is a description of that event where the contributions of human-caused climate change have been removed.
Figure II.2: How attribution science proceeds. First, the event must be defined; the spatial and temporal characteristics of the event need to be clearly delineated. Next, a counterfactual must be designed. In this case, one describes the event but with the contributions from climate change removed. In the third step, the actual and counterfactual events are compared. Finally, a conclusion is drawn about the quantitative effects of climate change on the event in question.
There are two ways to construct a counterfactual event. The first would be when a precise record of similar events was maintained over a long period of time. In that case, the record corresponding to some earlier time (perhaps before the Industrial Revolution) would have no contributions from global climate change. Failing that, one could access detailed climate models. In those models, one could systematically remove contributions due to anthropogenic climate change. However, use of climate models also adds uncertainty to the event being defined, so care must be taken to accurately determine the uncertainty in the calculations and in the ability of the calculations to precisely match the spatial and temporal boundaries of the physical event.
In the third step one compares the actual and counterfactual event outcomes. In the probabilistic EEA approach, the goal is to assess how much climate change has affected the probability or the intensity of the extreme event under study. In the storyline approach (sometimes called the conditional approach), the goal is to assess how climate change has altered the thermodynamic drivers of a specific event under similar dynamic conditions that were present for the real event, and how this affects the magnitude or intensity of that event.
In the probabilistic approach one determines the probability Pa of the actual event and compares it with the probability Pc of the counterfactual event. The climate change influence is defined as either the risk ratio of Pa/Pc or the fraction of attributable risk (FAR) given by
FAR = 1 – Pc/Pa.
When there is no climate change enhancement (Pc=Pa), FAR = 0. When climate change doubles the eventās probability (Pa=2Pc), FAR = 0.5. And for an event that is extremely unlikely without climate change FAR approaches 1.0. Sometimes the probability of a rare event is characterized by its return period (e.g., a once-per-hundred-year storm or flood), and the climate change effect is given by the change in the return period in the actual vs. counterfactual conditions.
Figure II.3 gives a qualitative picture of the effects of global climate change. This event could be something like the probability of given temperatures at some locality and time. The solid curve shows the probability of that event without contributions from anthropogenic climate change, while the dashed curve shows the likelihood when climate change is included. Climate change has two effects. The first is a shift in the peak leading to more hot weather and less cold weather. But a second effect is that the width of the distribution becomes larger. At the high end, we can see that there is a much higher probability for extreme and record-breaking hot weather. The area under the curve with climate change at very high temperatures is much larger than without climate change. So the probability of extreme events will grow because of climate change. This is one of the major issues that attribution science considers ā calculating the degree to which climate change has altered the probability of extreme events.
Figure II.3: A graph showing possible effects of climate change on the likelihood of certain climate events. The solid curve represents the likelihood of this observable in the absence of effects due to climate change. The dashed curve shows those events including the impact of anthropogenic climate change. Climate change moves the peak likelihood up, leading to more hot weather events. But the width of the curve is wider than without climate change effects. The wider tail can greatly increase the probability of extreme events, as shown by the red area at the right-hand end of the plot.
The NASEM committee produced a summary of types of extreme events and rated them on three criteria. First, they assessed the capability of climate models to calculate the effects of climate change on that event class. Second, they evaluated the quality and/or length of the observational period for those events. Finally, they assessed our understanding of the physical mechanisms that are related to anthropogenic climate change effects on those events. The results are shown in Figure II.4. The capability of models to simulate climate change effects ranges from āVery Highā for extreme heat or cold, to āVery Lowā for extreme snow, wildfires and severe convective storms. The quality or length of the observational record varies from āHighā for extreme heat and cold to āVery Lowā for extratropical cyclones and convective storms. Understanding of physical mechanisms that drive climate change contributions to events ranges from āVery Highā for extreme heat to āLowā for extratropical cyclones and convective storms.
Figure II.4: A table from the 2026 NASEM report that rates extreme events according to three criteria. The first is the capability of climate models to simulate climate change effects on that event type. The second is the quality or length of the observational record for that event. The third rates our understanding of the physical mechanisms by which climate change affects those events.
Figure II.5 provides a qualitative description of extreme event attribution studies on a number of extreme events. The vertical scale rates the confidence, from low to high, in our capability to assign attribution of human-caused climate change to a specific type of event. The horizontal scale ranks our understanding, from low to high, of the degree to which climate change affects a type of extreme event. The area of the circle for each event type is related to the number of EEA publications to date on that event.
Figure II.5: Categorization of extreme event types. The vertical scale rates the confidence, from low to high, in our capability to assign attribution of human-caused climate change to a specific type of event. The horizontal scale ranks our understanding, from low to high, of the degree to which climate change affects a type of extreme event. The area of the circle for each event type is related to the number of EEA publications for that event type.
In general, events that are most difficult to estimate involve meso-scale events such as severe convective storms. By necessity, the massive global climate codes must use very large grid spacing, so they are unable to compute events that occur on much smaller spatial scales. Recently there has been progress in calculating extreme events such as major hurricanes. In the area of the event, processes are calculated on much smaller spatial grids. Those results are then spliced onto the larger grids on which global climate change is calculated. We provide a description of some of this work in our recent post on extreme event attribution.
The 2026 NASEM report discusses the progress that has been made in this field in the last decade. It provides examples where EEA studies have been applied to extreme events of various kinds. The report highlights successes of these methods, while at the same time discussing the current limitations of these studies. It ends with a summary of the state of the field at this point in time. In this respect, the NASEM report follows the same pattern as any number of prior reviews by blue-ribbon committees formed by the National Academies. So, why has so much criticism been directed at this report, both before and immediately after it was issued in July 2026? In the next sections of this post we will describe the criticisms that have been leveled at this report, and we examine the reasons why this particular report has been so controversial.
III: Criticism of the NASEM Report on Extreme Event Attribution Studies
As we mentioned in the preceding section, the NASEM report on attribution science is itself a rather dry and technical investigation of an emerging scientific field. Its assessments of the successes and challenges of the field seem measured and justified by many presented details. But it has sparked an organized, contentious and vitriolic backlash from a number of different groups. In this section, we will examine three sources of criticism that may explain why this report on attribution science has become so controversial.
Fossil Fuel Companies Fear That EEA Analyses Can Show How Their GHG Emissions Have Exacerbated Extreme Events:
A major use of attribution science research is to quantify the extent to which extreme events have been made worse by the effects of human-caused (anthropogenic) contributions. This could be very useful to governments, showing them just how these anthropogenic contributions arise, and suggesting how extreme events in the environment are likely to change as we continue to pump greenhouse gases (GHGs), the dominant drivers of human-caused environmental effects, into the atmosphere. It can also predict the extent to which future extreme events will become more dire if we do not mitigate GHG emissions. Such analysis may highlight what adaptations will be most effective against future climate change effects.
But attribution science has another practical use, as it can demonstrate the extent to which GHGs have increased the severity of extreme events. This knowledge is of great importance to groups ā environmentalists, policy makers and researchers — that could be used in lawsuits against fossil fuel companies. This is not an academic issue: in the next section we will discuss a few of many pending U.S. cases where groups have filed lawsuits against fossil fuel companies. An important element of those lawsuits is the work of attribution scientists, in quantifying the extent to which anthropogenic contributions have increased the severity or frequency of catastrophic events. Theoretically, fossil fuel companies could be assessed billions of dollars if it is shown that they caused, or exacerbated, damage from major hurricanes, severe flooding, or mega-droughts. In the next section we review four court cases against fossil fuel companies, or the federal government, for actions that led to damages from events that were worsened by GHG emissions. Figure III.1 shows emission of methane from an oil field. Like carbon dioxide, the amount of the greenhouse gas methane in the atmosphere has increased dramatically.
Figure III.1: Methane emissions from oil fields. Like carbon dioxide, the concentration of methane in the atmosphere has increased dramatically as a result of fossil fuel production.
Fossil fuel companies, trade organizations like the American Petroleum Institute, and consulting firms like McKinsey who have provided consulting for companies whose products emit GHGs, have sharply criticized the NASEM attribution science report. Argus Insights, an opposition research firm that gathers information which could be used to weaken climate lawsuits, sent open records requests to several universities where NASEM panel members worked. They requested internal communications of panel members and the panelās chair. Kevin Smiley, a sociology professor at LSU and a member of the NASEM panel, learned that his e-mails had been searched and turned over to Argus only after a reporter contacted him.
Roger Pielke, Jr., a member of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, has been an outspoken critic of the NASEM panel. He noted that two of the members of NASEM panels had worked with either the Union of Concerned Scientists or the World Weather Attribution Consortium. Both of these groups have publicly supported litigation on climate matters. Pielke asked āIs it appropriate to include such legal advocates on a study committee focused on evaluating and legitimizing the information that they produce in support of the litigation that these advocates are involved in? Of course not. The failures of scientific integrity here are profound, obvious and completely out in public.ā
But on Jan. 2, 2025, an oil industry support group called Energy in Depth published an article that repeated Pielkeās claims and specifically mentioned Delta Merner, who at the time was on the panel and a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists. The article claimed that the NASEM panel āis staffed with activists seeking to take down the oil and gas industry.ā Merner was removed from the NASEM panel the same day. It is important to note that the panel report simply discussed methods used in attribution science, extreme events to which they have been applied, and assessed the reliability of these methods, as discussed in Section II of this post. Furthermore, most of the criticism here is that membership in a group that has advocated for climate litigation should be disqualified from serving on a task force discussing techniques and reliability of attribution science approaches.
Republicans in Congress and Red States Get Into the Act:
Criticism of the NASEM attribution science report by the fossil fuel industry has generated criticism against the National Academies from Republican supporters of oil and gas. Rep. Brian Babin (R ā TX), chair of the House Science Committee, sent a letter to the head of the National Academies stating āPublicly available information suggests a troubling pattern in which members of the Attribution Committee, who lead the review of the alleged human causes of climate change, are affiliated with nonprofits that support climate accountability lawsuits, raising the appearance of impropriety and member bias.ā The letter asked the National Academies to āprovide all records relating to the establishment and membership selection of the Attribution Committee.ā We note that the Committee was not charged, as Rep. Babin stated, with a āreview of the alleged human causes of climate change,ā but rather with reviewing attempts to determine the contribution of climate change to extreme weather events.
A group of Republicans in Congress has called for the White House or federal agencies to suspend or bar federal funding for NASEM. The claim is that the organization ā historically, the most widely trusted scientific organization in the world — is biased and is pursuing a āleftistā agenda. The group, led by Rep. Eric Burlison (R ā MO), shown in Figure III.2, specifically targeted a chapter in the NASEM āReference Manual on Scientific Evidence,ā a publication used by judges to evaluate scientific evidence which might be presented at a trial. Burlisonās letter claims that NASEM āhas sadly been the victim of ideological capture, driven by a woke, partisan, and special interest-driven agenda that puts the Leftās preferred narratives ahead of the facts.ā The letter points out that the chapter only included information from scientists who supported the overwhelming consensus on global climate change, rather than the handful of climate change deniers. Burlison stated, āThe American people are fed up with taxpayer dollars being used to push political agendas. When government-funded institutions blur the line between research and advocacy, it undermines trust and demands accountability.ā
Figure III.2: Congressman Eric Burlison (R ā MO). He is leading a group of Republican representatives claiming that NASEM is ādriven by a woke, partisan, and special interest-driven agenda that puts the Leftās preferred narratives ahead of the facts.ā
In August 2026, in the face of criticism from Trump administrators and from Republicans in Congress, NASEM temporarily retracted this chapter from its reference manual. The critics of this chapter claimed that some panelists who produced this material belonged to organizations that had filed lawsuits against corporations for damages caused by global climate change. NASEM is undergoing a review of the process by which this chapter was produced. In response to this action, a coalition representing the American Institute on Biological Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Statistical Association, the Ecological Society of America, and the Woodwell Climate Research Center issued a joint statement. Figure III.3 shows the heading of this statement. It claims that the removed chapter āreflects the broad scientific conclusions reached through decades of rigorous research.ā It further āreaffirms that climate change is occurring at an unprecedented rateā and calls for āthe immediate reinstatement of the climate science chapter to ensure judicial decisions are informed by rigorous, consensus-based evidence.ā
Figure III.3: Heading from the joint statement on the temporary removal of a chapter on climate change in a reference manual published by the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine. The statement claims that the removed chapter āreflects the broad scientific conclusions reached through decades of rigorous research,ā and calls for āimmediate reinstatement of the climate science chapter.ā
A recent response to climate lawsuits is that several Red states have recently passed laws that provide immunity to shield fossil fuel companies from being sued in that state for damages caused by climate change. The first state was Utah in March 2026; this was followed by similar legislation passed in Tennessee, Oklahoma, Iowa and Louisiana. There has also been legislation introduced in Congress that would permanently shield fossil fuel companies from damages caused by climate change. The āStop Climate Shakedowns Actā has been introduced in the House by Rep. Harriet Hageman (R- WY) and in the Senate by Ted Cruz (R ā TX). It is modeled on similar legislation that provides a shield for gun manufacturers against lawsuits for damage caused by their products. It would essentially be a āGet Out of Jail Freeā pass for the fossil fuel companies and any other links in the fossil fuel supply chain. Furthermore, the climate bill involves a strange use of the term “shakedown,” which means “to extort money through threats.” If you assault and injure me and I sue, surely this does not constitute a “shakedown”?
NASEM Becomes a Target in the MAGA War on Science:
During the 2024 election campaigns, a document prepared by the Heritage Foundation called Project 2025 became a campaign issue. Democrats claimed that this document was proposing a radical re-formation of government that would concentrate power in the Executive Branch. Donald Trump claimed that he knew nothing about the report, which blunted its impact as a campaign issue. However, following his re-election as President, Trump undertook a sweeping re-organization of his office, and appointed Cabinet members for offices such as the Justice Department and the FBI who clearly viewed their mission as total obedience to Trumpās personal priorities, which included retribution against people he considered his enemies and rewarding right-wing groups that had participated in the attempted coup on January 6, 2021.
A central feature of the Project 2025 blueprint was that all offices of government should have their priorities match those of Donald Trump. This included offices such as the Dept. of the Interior, the Energy Department, the NSF, and Health and Human Services. In the past, those offices had been run or advised by scientists, and their priorities determined by the most important scientific issues of the day. However, under Trump 2.0 these agencies have been run by Trump advocates, many of whom have little to no background in science. Chris Wright, Energy Secretary, has legitimate engineering credentials, but is an outspoken climate change denier. Here is Secretary Wright on renewable energy: in Sept. 2025 he posted on X, “Even if you wrapped the entire planet in a solar panel, you would only be producing 20% of global energy.ā This statement is not only false but also ridiculous. Regarding efforts to transition to 100% renewable energy by 2050, Wright said “Net zero 2050 is just a colossal train wreck ā¦ Itās just a monstrous human impoverishment program and of course there is no way it is going to happen.” Well, China is on track to achieve net zero carbon by 2060, and it is currently ahead of this target, so it could conceivably reach this target by 2050. However, so long as Trump Cabinet officials are unfailingly loyal, it does not seem to matter if they are grievously wrong.
One of Chris Wrightās most devious actions was convening a committee of five climate contrarians to write a report criticizing the 2009 Greenhouse Gas endangerment finding. That Climate Working Group (CWG) was composed of John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven Koonin, Roy Spencer and Ross McKittrick. On our blog we have previously criticized the climate skepticism of John Christy and Steven Koonin. The CWG group met in secret and issued a 141-page report, with its cover shown in Figure III.4, where they claimed that economic damages from climate change had been overstated. The EPA then quoted this document dozens of times in its push to overturn the endangerment finding. There were over 600,000 public comments on this proposal.
Figure III.4: Report of the 5-person DOE Climate Working Group, which was formed and met in secret, in violation of FACA transparency rules. The group took exception with conclusions from IPCC reports, authored by several hundred scientists who have worked for over 30 years providing regular updates on global climate change.
How did a group of 5 contrarians fare when criticizing the work of nearly 1,000 climate scientists over several decades? About what one might expect. A group of over 85 climate scientists headed by Andrew Dessler and Robert Kopp issued a devastating 434-page rebuttal of that report. The rebuttal, Climate Expertsā Review of the DOE Climate Working Group Report claimed that the secret CWG report relied heavily on cherry-picked data, out-of-context citations, and a disturbingly high volume of self-citation by its own authors. The rebuttal further claimed that the CWG report āunderstates health risks associated with climate change, wrongly states that models overestimate warming, and downplays the relationship between warming and wildfires.ā For example, the contrarians cited a report by Zeke Hausfather to claim that climate models overestimate warming; Hausfatherās actual conclusion was the models were āremarkably accurate.ā The CWG report also used results from five tidal gauges to claim that there is very little sea level rise, while the totality of data from all tidal gauges reaches exactly the opposite conclusion. Figure III.5 shows a study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) tabulating the frequency of billion-dollar disaster events from 1980 ā 2024 (numbers are adjusted for inflation). They included seven different types of extreme events, all of which could be exacerbated by global climate change. The results show a very clear increase in the frequency of these events, whose average cost now equals about $150 billion per year.
Figure III.5: NOAA data on the number and cost of inflation-adjusted billion-dollar U.S. extreme weather disasters from 1980 to 2024. The color coding identifies the type of extreme weather disasters according to the legend at the top of the graph. The solid black line represents the five-year average cost of these disasters, which now amounts to about $150 billion per year (right-hand axis).
In February 2026, William Young, U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Massachusetts ruled that DOE Secretary Chris Wright and the Climate Working Group had acted illegally, violating transparency rules enacted in the Federal Advisory Committee Act, or FACA. Under FACA rules, a government advisory committee such as the CWG must make known their formation, meetings, documents and notes. Judge Young noted that the CWG actively attempted to conceal its existence. Many of the arguments in the CWG report had been thoroughly debunked in the voluminous reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate scientists assailed the report as āeither misleading or fundamentally incorrect.ā NASEM later released its own report that supported the 2009 Endangerment Finding and contradicted the CWG report. They concluded that the evidence that GHGs cause harm to human health and welfare āis beyond scientific dispute.ā Citing the CWG report, the EPA had contended that evidence supporting the Endangerment Finding had weakened since 2009. However, the NASEM report stated that āMuch of the understanding of climate change that was uncertain or tentative in 2009 is now resolved and new threats have been identified.ā To summarize, the CWG 5-person secret report was a hack job, and a weak one at that. However, Judge Young ruled that despite the fact that the CWG group had acted illegally, the report itself did not need to be stricken from the federal record, so that federal agencies could continue to use that badly flawed CWG report.
Lee Zeldin, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, is a lawyer and former Congressman who has recanted his prior acknowledgment of the reality of climate change, and is leading efforts to roll back environmental regulations that have protected the health of Americans for decades. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the lawyer and politician who is current head of Health and Human Services, has been a disaster in that role. He completely misunderstands the safety and efficacy of vaccines and falsely claims a link between vaccines and autism. He fails to understand that autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder, and he also promulgates false information about HIV/AIDS.
MAGA activists insist that all federal offices must prioritize the Presidentās priorities on all issues. For science, this would be a very bad idea regardless of the party In power. Authoritarian countries that suppress science in favor of political doctrine have suffered greatly ā we wrote a blog post that catalogued the dire consequences of āAryan Scienceā adopted in Germany before and during World War II, and the crippling effects of Lysenkoism to biology and genetics in Stalinist Russia. In both cases, political considerations were allowed to override scientific knowledge, with disastrous consequences for both countries.
The U.S. is currently undergoing similar attacks on science. First, the heads of the Energy Department and the EPA echo Donald Trumpās claim that global climate change is a āhoax.ā RFK Jr., with support from Trump, denies that vaccines are safe and effective. Trump has just issued an executive order that the combination measles, mumps and rubella shot that has protected millions of Americans from these infectious diseases, should be given as three separate shots administered at separate times. This order, if implemented, would ensure that epidemics of these diseases, and additional diseases covered by his order, would begin to sweep the country. We are already seeing an explosion of measles cases in the U.S. RFK Jr. has repeatedly minimized the danger of measles, and his occasional endorsement of vaccination has been countered by his insistence that vaccination should be a personal decision. Figure III.6 shows U.S. measles cases by year. Note that 2025 had more than 8 times as many cases as 2024, and the 2026 number, by July 22, 2026, has already exceeded the 2025 total. This is a harbinger of bad things to come with respect to infectious diseases that had been virtually eliminated from the U.S. just a few years ago.
Figure III.6: U.S. measles cases by year since 2022. The year 2025 had more than 8 times as many measles cases as in 2024, and by July 22, 2026 the number of measles cases in the U.S. had already exceeded that of 2025. Graph from the American Academy of Pediatrics.
However, MAGA supporters of Trump have been searching for āvillains,ā groups of scientists who are deemed insufficiently loyal to the President. At the moment, Dr. Anthony Fauci is a target of right-wing Republicans who want Fauci punished for various actions that were taken during the COVID pandemic. Recently, Fauci was summoned to a hearing of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, headed by Rand Paul (R ā KY). Paul has repeatedly called for Fauci to be indicted for his actions during the pandemic. The Senate committee had no new information regarding the pandemic, other than the fact that they had leaked Fauciās private diary before his appearance. During his appearance before the Senate Committee, shown in Figure III.7, Fauci pointed out that he had testified before Congress on 200 occasions. He stated that “The only conclusion I can reach is that the sole reason [Rand Paul] is calling me before this committee is to get me to say something – anything – that could vindicate his repeated public pledges that I end up, in his words, ‘behind bars.ā” Fauci then exercised his Fifth Amendment rights in response to every question asked of him.
Figure III.7: Dr. Anthony Fauci appearing before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on July 29, 2026. On the advice of counsel Dr. Fauci did not answer questions and cited his Fifth Amendment rights.
Of course, Dr. Fauci is correct; the hearing was a transparent attempt to induce him to say anything that could be held against him. Although he was issued a pardon by President Biden in 2024, he was still at risk of being indicted if Senator Paul claimed that Fauci committed perjury in this testimony. To prove that this was the intent of the hearing, immediately afterwards Senator Paul proposed that Fauci be indicted for contempt of Congress; the vote passed on an 8 ā5 party-line vote. The normal procedure would be for the entire Senate to vote on this resolution; however, Paul referred the committeeās vote directly to the Department of Justice.
To the MAGA world, Anthony Fauci has become a symbol of elite scientists who refuse to reinforce Donald Trumpās priorities. Some snide comments in Fauciās diary about Trump have only served to further inflame tensions. Figure III.8 shows the dramatic decline in Republicans who support vaccine requirements for children attending public schools. Adults were surveyed in June 2016, October 2019 and March 2023. In 2016 83% of Democrats and 79% of Republicans supported these vaccine requirements. However, by March 2023 85% of Democrats supported this while Republican support had dropped to 57%. This shows the radical politicization of vaccine issues. It also shows the dramatic drop in Republican support, presumably largely due to the controversy over COVID pandemic measures.
Figure III.8: Fraction of American adults who support vaccine requirements for children attending public schools, as a function of time. Adults were surveyed in June 2016, October 2019 and March 2023. In 2016 83% of Democrats and 79% of Republicans supported these vaccine requirements. However, by March 2023 85% of Democrats supported this action while Republican support had dropped to 57%.
As we have mentioned, the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) have recently come under fire. This elite group is made up of the most accomplished scientists in their respective fields. NASEM regularly convenes groups of experts who issue reports on important scientific issues. Their reports are extremely effective because of the experts on these panels. We know of no NASEM members who are climate change deniers. This does not imply that NASEM members are all āwoke leftistsā but it puts them at odds with Trump Administration officials and with MAGA members who deny climate change. Furthermore, no NASEM members are anti-vaxxers. Once again, this will lead to criticism by MAGA members that these scientists are elite leftists. Note also that Anthony Fauci is a member of the National Academy of Medicine.
The MAGA war against science may be part of a more general war against facts. Donald Trump demands that his followers loyally support statements he makes that have no factual basis. We can give just a few examples of an extremely long list of Trump assertions:
- Donald Trump won the 2020 presidential election against Joe Biden, but it was fraudulently stolen from him.
- Millions of non-citizens vote in our national elections.
- Voting machines have been hacked by foreign adversaries.
- Non-citizen immigrants are participating in a coordinated invasion of American cities.
- Renovation of the Reflecting Pool in Washington D.C. was āperfect;ā however, vandals ripped out huge sections of the lining and poured fertilizer into the water to create algal blooms.
Since there is no evidence that any of these claims are true, this leaves the MAGA base with two cohorts. The first group believes these claims. The second group realizes that these statements are false, but they repeat them as a means of demonstrating their loyalty to Trump. Surely, nearly all Republicans on Congress fall into the second category. This is highly disturbing as uncritical fealty to a dishonest leader is a clear sign of an authoritarian government. It is possible that the war on science is simply another manifestation of the war on facts.
In closing this section, we note that none of the coordinated attacks on the NASEM report on attribution science has even attempted to refute scientific details. All of the attacks have made ad hominem claims that either conflicts of interest or nefarious political motivations render the report dishonest. In short, the attacks are simply using well-developed parts of the Science Denierās Toolbox that we exposed in an early blog on this site.
IV: Legal Cases That Involve Evidence from Attribution Studies
In this section we will provide a short list of lawsuits where plaintiffs have introduced the results of extreme event attribution studies in an attempt to prove that human-caused climate change has caused extreme events that led to major damage, or that corporations or the government created situations that resulted in harm to the plaintiffs.
First, we make some general remarks about the prospects that lawsuits against fossil fuel companies will actually succeed in holding them responsible for decades of deceiving the public about climate change. In 2022, we wrote a blog post on the possibility of holding Big Oil or Big Tech responsible for their actions. We were pessimistic about the prospects for achieving success in such lawsuits. Here, we refer to a 2024 article by Audrey Carbonell in the Columbia Law Review on the possibility that such corporations might be held legally responsible in these and similar lawsuits for causing damage to our ecosystem. Ms. Carbonell points out what is currently known, which is that in the mid-1970s ExxonMobil carried out studies of the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on the Earthās climate. Their conclusions turned out to be remarkably accurate. But instead of alerting the public to this information, ExxonMobil kept it secret; meanwhile, they funded many āthink tanksā that questioned the validity of climate science, and they played a significant role in the U.S. refusal to ratify the 1997 Kyoto Protocol international climate treaty.
However, even though it is clear that ExxonMobil hid its knowledge of the coming effects of climate change, and along with groups that they funded denied climate change effects, it may be difficult or impossible to hold them legally accountable for their actions. The fossil fuel companies argue that they mostly complied with the Clean Air Act and EPA regulations, and therefore they cannot be sued for their actions. Furthermore, they claim that these federal regulations supersede all state regulations, and therefore they cannot be sued in state courts for damages relating to climate change.
Another open question at the moment is: even if one can prove that actions by the fossil fuel companies harmed the environment, that these companies knew about the impending harm, and not only did not disclose this but actively and dishonestly hid it from the public, do these actions make these companies liable for damages? At present the U.S. does not recognize āRights of Natureā as do some countries like Ecuador. Note that in the case Juliana v. United States discussed below, climatologist James Hansen appeared as a plaintiff as a āguardian for future generations.ā However, as that case was eventually thrown out of court by a decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court refused to overturn the Ninth Court decision, that issue is still an open one.
Held vs. Montana:
In 2020, sixteen young Montanans filed a lawsuit against their state. They argued that state policies that shielded fossil fuel companies from liability for their emissions of GHGs infringed on their right to a clean and healthful environment. Specifically, the plaintiffs were challenging a provision in the Montana Environmental Policy Act; this provision prohibited the state from considering GHGs as a factor in determining whether to issue a permit for an energy-related project. The plaintiffs also referred to a phrase in the Montana constitution that the “state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.” This phrase was important, as it meant that the plaintiffs did not have to prove that they had such rights. Held v. Montana became the first climate-related constitutional law case in the U.S. to proceed to trial. Figure IV.1 shows some of the plaintiffs, who were supported by the non-profit public-interest law firm Our Childrenās Trust, walking towards a hearing in Helena, Montana.
Figure IV.1: The plaintiffs in the lawsuit Held v. Montana were 16 youths who were represented by the non-profit law firm Our Childrenās Trust. This photo shows some of those students walking towards a hearing on their suit in Helena, Montana.
In August 2023, a state district judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. She stated that Montanaās law, which prohibited the state from evaluating GHG emissions during environmental reviews in the process of issuing permits, was unconstitutional. For comparison, although the state of Montana ranks 43rd among U.S. states in population, it ranks 8th in mineral extraction. In 2024 a Montana Supreme Court affirmed the lower court ruling. However, the Montana legislature passed a new law that exempted the stateās Dept. of Environmental Quality (DEQ) from “adhering to air quality and emissions standards when authorizing or changing permits.” The plaintiffs then filed new lawsuits requesting that the courts enforce their previous decision and declare the new Montana statutes to be unconstitutional.
In this case, attribution science has been used to demonstrate how Montanaās fossil fuel industry emits massive amounts of GHGs. For example, Montana emits a comparable amount of GHGs as Ireland. Scientists who testified claimed that a measurable amount of environmental changes in Montana, e.g., extreme heat, diminished snowpack, and severe drought, could be directly related to anthropogenic climate change, as opposed to natural variability of weather. This testimony helped convince the court that Montanaās actions contributed a āsubstantial factorā in producing these changes. Another scientist testified that the topography of Montana would allow the state to transition from 75% of energy generated from fossil fuels to 92% generated from wind power. As of August 2026, the matter is still under litigation as the courts have not ruled on the latest lawsuit attempting to declare unconstitutional the latest Montana law exempting the DEQ from needing to consider air quality and emission standards when authorizing permits.
Juliana vs. United States:
The case Juliana vs. United States was a climate-related lawsuit that was filed by 21 youth plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. Backed by the non-profit environmental law firm Our Childrenās Trust, the lawsuit alleged that by its continued support of the fossil fuel industry, the U.S. had violated the due process rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The plaintiffs had all been chosen as people who had suffered measurable harm from extreme events such as flooding, rising sea levels, or desertification. At a trial, the plaintiffs would have used testimony from experts in extreme event attribution science, who would have argued that they could show that global climate change, which had produced a number of changes in the environment, could be directly connected to an increased probability of effects such as extreme floods, unprecedented heat waves, drought, or other effects that have degraded the environment. Figure IV.2 shows a coal-fired energy plant belching gases into the environment. In addition to their emission of greenhouse gases, emissions of fine particulate matter called PM2.5 from fossil fuel plants are dangerous for human health, and PM2.5 from coal-fired plants is particularly harmful.
Figure IV.2: Smoke and emissions from a coal-fired energy plant. Coal-fired plants emit large amounts of fine particulate matter called PM2.5. The fine matter emitted by coal plants is unusually harmful to human health.
Following pre-trial testimony, U.S. Magistrate Thomas Coffin ruled against motions by the defense to quash the lawsuit. In Nov. 2016 Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the right to āa climate system capable of sustaining human lifeā was a fundamental American right. This was the first such ruling ever by a U.S. federal court. However, in January 2017 when further arguments were heard in the case, Donald Trump had become President. Fossil fuel companies, that had initially been defendants in the case, withdrew on the (correct) assumption that the Trump administration would defend this case vigorously. There followed a series of requests and counter-requests from both sides in this case. The requests went back and forth between Judge Aiken of the U.S. District Court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court.
Eventually in January 2020, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court ruled by a 2ā1 vote that the case be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. That is, the judges ruled that the plaintiffs had not shown that they had suffered a direct and concrete injury, or that a ruling by the court would fix the injury suffered. Judge Hurwitz in the majority wrote that “it is beyond the power of an Article III court to order, design, supervise, or implement the plaintiffs’ requested remedial plan. As the opinions of their experts make plain, any effective plan would necessarily require a host of complex policy decisions entrusted, for better or worse, to the wisdom and discretion of the executive and legislative branches.” So the majority ruled that this issue was better addressed by the executive and legislative branches, and not by the courts.
The plaintiffs asked the full Ninth Court of Appeals to consider their appeal of the three-judge decision. In Feb. 2021 the full Ninth Court turned down the appeal with no written dissenting opinions. The plaintiffs then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Ninth Circuit Court dismissal of their case. In March 2025, the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal.
County Commissioners of Boulder County vs Suncor Energy & ExxonMobil:
In 2018, Boulder County (Colorado), the city of Boulder, and San Miguel County sued Suncor Energy and ExxonMobil. They claimed that Suncor and ExxonMobil had knowingly contributed to climate change and had actively concealed the risks related to energy production by fossil fuels. These risks included floods, drought, and wildfire, all of which inflicted massive burdens on Colorado taxpayers. Boulder County has argued that the fossil fuel use by Suncor and ExxonMobil has led to more days with āextreme heat,ā less āwater availability,ā ālarger and more frequent wildfires,ā and other harms that continue to threaten property and public health. Were the case to go to trial, the plaintiffs would rely on extreme event attribution studies in an attempt to show quantitatively how much of the increase in these adverse outcomes was the result of climate change, which is caused primarily by the injection of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. And fossil fuel burning is a dominant source of GHG emissions. The defendants argue that federal environmental law and the Clean Air Act preempt climate claims in a single state. Boulder answers that the case should be tried in state court to address costs to local property and Colorado taxpayers.
One example of the effects of climate change is a 25-year mega-drought that has hit many areas in the Western states. Figure IV.3 shows the level of water in Lake Mead, the lake formed when the Hoover Dam was constructed. On August 9, 2026 the water level in Lake Mead was 317.1 meters above sea level. There is a level for Lake Mead below which the Hoover Dam would have to cut by about 70% the hydroelectric power that it can provide. That level is 315.4 m. As you can see, Lake Mead is dangerously close to that level; if the drought persists, it could reach that level by next year or even by the end of 2026. The current level is the lowest since the lake was filled in 1930 following construction of the Hoover Dam. In Fig. IV.3 one can clearly see the ābathtub ringā marking the level when the lake was full of water. Every inch that the water recedes represents billions of gallons of water. Milder winters and a decreasing snowpack, both characteristics of global climate change, have contributed to these very serious low water levels. Some 30 million people in seven states rely on the Colorado River basin for water for drinking, hydropower, industry and agriculture.
There are several studies using attribution science techniques that examine the role of anthropogenic climate change in turning what would have been a ādry spellā of weather at the beginning of the 21st century into perhaps the worst mega-drought experienced by the American southwest in the past 1,200 years. A 2020 paper in Science by Williams, et al. showed that the current drought was the second-worst such drought since 800 CE. Using climate models, they show that human-caused climate change caused about 46% of the severity of the drought during the period 2000 ā 2018. A later paper analyzed tree-ring data to compare modern soil moisture conditions with those from previous centuries. They concluded that the drought had intensified in recent years and that the 2000 ā 2021 period was the driest in the American southwest since at least 800 CE.
Figure IV.3: Current water level at Lake Mead, produced when the Hoover Dam was completed. The ābathtub ringā in the picture represents the level reached when the lake was filled with water. The current water level in Lake Mead is the lowest since the lake was formed in 1930.
In May 2025, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled 5 ā 2 that federal law did not preempt Boulderās claims in state court. This would have allowed the case to proceed to trial. But in Feb. 2026, the US Supreme Court agreed to the petition by Suncor Energy for a writ of certiorari. This means that both parties in the dispute are required to send information on the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court agreed in October 2025 to hear oral arguments and is expected to determine in 2027 whether federal law supersedes state law in climate change damage lawsuits. If the Supreme Court should decide that climate change damage lawsuits cannot be filed in state courts, this would negate a number of climate lawsuits that have been filed in other states.
We mention one possibly relevant fact in this case. Supreme Court justices decide whether to recuse themselves from a particular case because of a conflict of interest. There is no external body that determines whether recusal should take place. There are two Supreme Court justices who hold stock in individual companies (rather than, say, investing in index funds that average over hundreds of companies) ā John Roberts and Samuel Alito. A 2026 analysis of Justice Alitoās stock portfolio suggests that as much as 30% of his net worth comes from oil and gas interests. Despite the fact that the Boulder v. Suncor lawsuit deals with claims of damages from the fossil fuel industry, Justice Alito refused to recuse himself. He said that because he did not own stock in the two companies (Suncor and ExxonMobil) explicitly named in the suit, he saw no conflict of interest.
Multnomah County v. ExxonMobil Corp:
In June 2023, Multnomah County, Oregon filed a lawsuit against several fossil fuel companies, industry trade organizations, and consultants. It alleged that the defendants were guilty of negligence, public nuisance, and fraud. The specific event named in this lawsuit was a June 2021 heat dome that produced temperatures in the county as high as 116o F, caused 69 deaths in Multnomah County and caused extreme stress in public infrastructure.
Some of the oil company defendants included ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, BP and ConocoPhillips. The American Petroleum Institute was a defendant as was the consulting firm McKinsey & Company. Allegations were that the companies spent several decades hiding from the public the known dangers associated with fossil fuel use for energy. The lawsuit requested from the defendants $50 million in damages to date, another $1.5 billion in future damages, and it requested a fund of $50 billion to pay for abatement against current and future climate change.
The āheat domeā is a region of exceptionally high temperatures. Instead of moving across a region like normal weather patterns, a heat dome āstalls,ā and the one in question remained in place over the same region for several days. The specific event referred to in the lawsuit was a heat dome in the Pacific Northwest and Canada at the end of June 2021. A number of locations saw temperatures more than 6o C above high temperature records for the preceding 70 years. This heat dome caused many fatalities, was implicated in several wildfires, and was extremely costly for the local governments involved.
Figure IV.4 shows temperature contours defining the form of the āheat dome.ā These show temperature measurements across a region of Canada from June 26 ā June 30, 2021. The temperatures are measured at roughly 50o N latitude and are shown as temperature anomalies (amounts above normal temperatures for those days) vs. altitude in kilometers and vs. longitude from west to east. The boundary of the Pacific Ocean with British Columbia and the border of British Columbia and Alberta are denoted. The heat dome appears as a region of exceptionally high temperatures that hovered over British Columbia for a 5-day period. The heat dome over Oregon and the U.S. Pacific Northwest was essentially identical with that in southern Canada. Some temperature anomalies over British Columbia were as large as 16o C, or nearly 29o F. Furthermore, these temperatures occurred in late June, about a month earlier than the highest summer temperatures are normally experienced in this region.
Figure IV.4: Temperature anomalies in Canada during the June 2021 heat dome. Temperature anomalies are plotted vs. height above sea level, in km, and longitude from 145Ā° W to 100Ā° W, along 50o N latitude. The Pacific Ocean ā British Columbia coast is labeled Pac | BC, while the British Columbia ā Alberta border is labeled BC | AB.
The plaintiffs in the case argue that they are not trying to regulate global or interstate emissions; they claim that the actions of the defendants have caused the extreme weather that struck the Pacific Northwest and are asking damages for the distress caused in Multnomah County. There is a clear role for attribution science in this lawsuit. A study published in Earth System Dynamics found that the June 2021 heat dome āwould have been at least 150 times rarer without human-induced climate change.ā They found that the observed maximum temperatures were so extreme that the heat dome was āvirtually impossible without human-caused climate change.ā The defendants are relying on arguments that federal law takes precedence over state laws and that the lawsuit must be thrown out of court. They further argue that the evidence produced by the plaintiffs proves that the cause of the heat dome is due to global climate change, therefore the state cannot sue for damages as only the federal government has this power. This is the issue that will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Suncor Energy vs. County Commissioners of Boulder County case, where a decision is expected in 2027.
One difference in this lawsuit as opposed to other lawsuits discussed in this section is that Multnomah County is suing for damages that occurred from one specific extreme event. They are not bringing a lawsuit on general claims about negative effects from climate change. This might give them some advantage over the other lawsuits mentioned here.
V. Summary:
In a recent blog post, we discussed the 2026 report by the National Academies on Science, Engineering and Medicine on Attribution of Extreme Weather and Climate Events and Their Impacts. That report, like all such NASEM reports, was a scientific examination of the emerging field of extreme event attribution studies (EEA). It assessed the current status of the field, the types of studies that are being carried out in this area, the confidence in studies of various extreme events, and the present uncertainties in these calculations. The report was highly technical and, to our minds, rather uncontroversial. Thus, it seemed surprising that the report was greeted by coordinated attacks from several quarters. The purpose of this post is to examine the following questions: Where were these criticisms coming from? What was the nature of the criticism? And how was this related to the current political landscape?
We found that there were three general sources for the criticism of the NASEM report. The first was from representatives of the fossil fuel industry. They were concerned that EEA studies could be used in lawsuits that accused fossil fuel companies of concealing from the public the dangers from continued human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. EEA studies are capable of estimating the extent to which extreme events have been caused by anthropogenic climate change. Indeed, in Section IV of this post we review four such lawsuits that have been filed against elements of the fossil fuel industry.
A second source of attacks on the NASEM report comes from elected representatives, who see themselves as defenders of the fossil fuel industry. At present, all of these attacks have been launched by Republicans in both Congress and in state governments. In fact, a few Red states have recently passed legislation that would make it illegal to file lawsuits against fossil fuel companies for damages that were caused by GHG emissions.
We note that up to now, all of the attacks on extreme event attribution studies and the NASEM report have nothing to do with the science itself. The claim is that the NASEM committees included people who worked for agencies that had either filed lawsuits against fossil fuel companies, or which supported the idea of suing these companies for damages. This sort of āguilt by associationā was the source of claims that the people participating on these panels could not be impartial regarding the dynamics of EEA studies.
A third source of criticism had less to do with the details of the NASEM Extreme Event Attribution report than with the entire composition of the National Academies. This was part of a MAGA movement, described in the report Project 2025, stating that all government agencies must align themselves with the priorities of the Executive Branch, here represented by Donald Trump. This puts NASEM, and in fact all science-related agencies, at odds with several Trump priorities. Donald Trump has made many statements that clash with scientific consensus. For example, he has repeatedly claimed that global climate change is a āhoax,ā that wind power is dangerous and useless, and he has made several fact-free claims about vaccination and other public health issues.
The MAGA criticisms can be made of any scientific group that agrees with the overwhelming consensus on these issues. The criticism of NASEM is largely a reflection that this is a war on all of science. The fact that National Academy members are elites who hold such beliefs is regarded as an excuse to de-fund these bodies. Indeed, legislation has been introduced that would pull all government funding for NASEM agencies. We hope that cooler heads prevail and that these bills will not pass; however, such efforts show a growing hostility among Republicans towards science, towards educated elites, and even a war on facts.
In Section IV of this post we reviewed four lawsuits filed against fossil fuel companies, or in one case the federal government, for damages from extreme events that were made more severe by global warming. One of those suits (Juliana v. United States) has already been dismissed. In 2027, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a suit filed by Suncor Energy against the city of Boulder, Colorado. If SCOTUS rules that states cannot file such lawsuits against fossil fuel companies, but only the federal government could file such a suit, that would render moot all three of the remaining lawsuits. Given the recent hostility of SCOTUS towards climate regulations, we are not optimistic for the outcome of these lawsuits.
It is possible that class-action lawsuits filed by citizens who have been harmed by climate disasters, would have a higher chance of success. In the meantime, extreme event attribution studies will continue. They will show, with ever more confidence, the extent to which recent climate disasters have been exacerbated by global climate change.
Source Material:
IPCC 6th Assessment ReportĀ https://climatenetwork.org/ipcc_6ar/
Rebecca Lindsey, Extreme Event Attribution: The Climate vs. Weather Blame Game, climate.govĀ Dec. 15, 2016 https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/extreme-event-attribution-climate-versus-weather-blame-game
National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, Attribution of Extreme Weather and Climate Events and Their Impacts, July 2026Ā https://www.nationalacademies.org/projects/DELS-BASCPR-23-02/publication/28590
National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change, March 2016Ā https://www.nationalacademies.org/read/21852
Debunkingdenial.comĀ Assessing the Contribution of Climate Change to Extreme Weather Events, Aug. 10 2026 https://debunkingdenial.com/assessing-the-contribution-of-climate-change-to-extreme-weather-events/
Corbin Hiar, Lesley Clark and Chelsea Harvey, Inside the Campaign to Discredit a Key Climate Science Report, E&E News, Politico, June 11, 2026 https://www.eenews.net/articles/inside-the-war-to-sideline-stronger-climate-science-before-its-used-in-court/
Roger Pielke, Jr. Weather Attribution Alchemy, The Honest Broker substack, Oct. 7, 2024 https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/weather-attribution-alchemy
Kyle Kohli, Climate Plaintiffs Plan to Launder Donor-Funded Research Through the National Academy of Sciences, Energy In Depth, Jan. 2, 2025Ā https://eidclimate.org/climate-plaintiffs-plan-to-launder-donor-funded-research-through-the-national-academy-of-sciences/
Brian Babin, Chair, House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, letter to Marcia McNutt, President, NASEM, April 21, 2026 https://republicans-science.house.gov/_cache/files/2/b/2b63ce9f-f802-4cd8-85d2-65ff05f42e3e/F8FAFC6097FE51954BD2CA210A9B07F3509D6333DDBA187583F7A746BBC5E4B5.4.21.26-ioenvsst-to-nas-attribution-.pdf
Victor Nava, GOP Lawmakers Urge Trump Administration to Defund āWokeā National Academies, New York Post, May 6, 2026 https://nypost.com/2026/05/06/us-news/gop-lawmakers-urge-trump-admin-to-defund-woke-national-academies/
National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Fourth EditionĀ https://www.nationalacademies.org/projects/PGA-POLICY-20-30/publication/26919
Pat Rizzuto, National Academies Pulls Climate Chapter From Court Manual, Bloomberg Law, Aug. 7, 2026 https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/national-academies-pulls-climate-chapter-from-manual-courts-use
Joint Statement on Availability of Climate Science in Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence,Ā American Institute of Biological Sciences, March 16, 2026 https://www.aibs.org/news/2026/260316-statement-climate-science-reference-manual.html
Dana Drugmand, Republicans in Congress Push āClimate Shakedownā Bill That Permanently Shields Big Oil From Accountability, Sierra Club, May 6, 2026 https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/climate-shakedown-GOP-bill-permanently-shields-big-oil-accountability
Project 2025, The Heritage Foundation, April 2023 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025
Sam Meredith, āA Colossal Train Wreck:ā U.S. Energy Chief Slams Odds of Net Zero by 2050, CNBC, Sept. 9, 2025 https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/09/us-energy-chief-chris-wright-says-net-zero-by-2050-is-unrealistic.html
Faster Scale-Up of Clean Technologies Could Get China on Track for Net-Zero Emissions by 2050, Bloomberg ETF, Sept. 4, 2024Ā https://about.bnef.com/insights/clean-energy/faster-scale-up-of-clean-technologies-could-get-china-on-track-for-net-zero-emissions-by-2050/
DebunkingDenial.com, John Christy, Climate Change Denier, April 1, 2020Ā https://debunkingdenial.com/john-christy-climate-change-denier-part-i/
DebunkingDenial.comĀ Debunked?Ā A Review of Steven Kooninās Book Unsettled?, Oct. 5, 2021 https://debunkingdenial.com/debunked-a-review-of-steven-koonins-book-unsettled/
Wikipedia, A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Critical_Review_of_Impacts_of_Greenhouse_Gas_Emissions_on_the_U.S._Climate
Leigh Krietsch Boerner, Judge Rules DOE Climate Group Illegal, But Lets Their Science Stand, Chemical & Engineering News, Feb. 5, 2026 https://cen.acs.org/policy/litigation/doe-climate-working-group-illegal/104/web/2026/02
Congress.gov, The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA): Overview and Considerations for Congress, Mar. 26, 2024Ā https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47984
DOEresponseSite, Climate Expertsā Review of the DOE Climate Working Group Report, Ā https://sites.google.com/tamu.edu/doeresponse/home
Leigh Krietsch Boerner, National Academiesā Climate Report Supports Endangerment Finding, Contradicting EPA, Chemical & Engineering News, Sept. 18, 2025 https://cen.acs.org/environment/greenhouse-gases/National-Academies-climate-report-supports/103/web/2025/09
Wikipedia, Lee ZeldinĀ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Zeldin
Wikipedia, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.Ā https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.
DebunkingDenial.comĀ The Trump Executive Order That Could Kill American Science?, Sept. 25, 2025Ā Ā https://debunkingdenial.com/portfolio/the-trump-executive-order-that-could-kill-american-science/
Matthew Perrone, Trumpās Vaccine Order Would Require Millions of Individual Shots Last Used Decades Ago, PBS.org Aug. 14, 2026 https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/trumps-vaccine-order-would-require-millions-of-individual-shots-last-used-decades-ago
Joseph Choi, Rand Paul Pushes For Fauci Indictment Before Statute of Limitations Expires, The Hill May 5, 2026 https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5864309-rand-paul-calls-for-fauci-indictment/
Ari Daniel, Rand Paul Releases Anthony Fauciās Pandemic-Era Diary Notes.Ā Hereās What They Tell Us, NPR July 26, 2026Ā https://www.npr.org/2026/07/27/nx-s1-5909531/rand-paul-anthony-fauci-coronavirus-diary-lab-leak-origin
Ahmed Aboulenein, Republican US Senator Rand Paul Asks Justice Department to Prosecute Fauci After Contempt Vote, Reuters Aug. 6, 2026 https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-senate-panel-votes-hold-fauci-contempt-congress-2026-08-06/
DebunkingDenial.comĀ The Science Denierās Toolbox, June 27, 2017Ā https://debunkingdenial.com/portfolio/the-science-deniers-toolbox/
DebunkingDenial.comĀ How Can Corporations That Profit From Science Denial Be Held Accountable?Ā Aug. 22, 2022 https://debunkingdenial.com/how-can-corporations-that-profit-from-science-denial-be-held-accountable/
Audrey Carbonell, Fraudulent Advertising and Environmental Degradation: Can Fossil Fuel Corporations Be Held Legally Responsible For Their Contributions to Climate Change?Ā Columbia Undergraduate Law Review, Feb. 6, 2024Ā https://www.culawreview.org/journal/fraudulent-advertising-and-environmental-degradation-can-fossil-fuel-corporations-be-held-legally-responsible-for-their-contribution-to-climate-change
Shannon Hall, Exxon Knew About Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago, Scientific American Oct. 26, 2015Ā https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
Alice McCarthy, Exxon Disputed Climate Findings For Years.Ā Its Scientists Knew Better, Harvard Gazette, Jan. 12, 2023 https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/
Jeffrey Pierre and Scott Neuman, How Decades of Disinformation About Fossil Fuels Halted U.S. Climate Policy, NPR, Oct. 27, 2021Ā https://www.npr.org/2021/10/27/1047583610/once-again-the-u-s-has-failed-to-take-sweeping-climate-action-heres-why
Wikipedia, Held vs. MontanaĀ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Held_v._Montana
Our Childrenās Trust, The Future of 2 Billion Children is Threatened by Climate Change, https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/
Ā Wikipedia, Juliana v. United StatesĀ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v._United_States
National Institute of Health, National Institute on Aging, Deaths Associated With Pollution From Coal Power Plants, Jan. 3, 2024Ā https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/deaths-associated-pollution-coal-power-plants
United States Court of Appeals For the Ninth Circuit, re Juliana v. United States, Dec. 1, 2017 https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/03/07/17-71692.pdf
Boulder County News Archive, U.S. Supreme Court Decides to Hear Climate Case Against ExxonMobil and Suncor Entities, Feb. 23, 2026 https://bouldercounty.gov/news/u-s-supreme-court-decides-to-hear-climate-case-against-exxonmobil-and-suncor-entities/
Chad de Guzman, The U.S.ās Largest Reservoir Just Fell To Its Lowest Water Level, TIME, Aug. 10, 2026 https://time.com/article/2026/08/10/lake-mead-low-water-level/
A Park Williams et al., Large Contribution From Anthropogenic Warming to an Emerging North American Megadrought, Science 368, 314 (2020) https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaz9600
A Park Williams et al., Rapid Intensification of the Emerging Southwestern North American Megadrought in 2020 ā 2021, Nature Climate Change 12, 232 (2022) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01290-z
Google.docxĀ Overview of Samuel Alitoās Wealth and Oil and Gas Interests, 1990 ā 2024 https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ioEWSdOM7Nhi5rBYOV3kebUr5V0fYF8/edit
Wikipedia Climate Change LitigationĀ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_litigation
Dr. Rachel White, Guest Post: The Causes and Impacts of Pacific North-Westās Brutal 2021 Heatwave, CarbonBrief Feb. 13, 2023 https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-the-causes-and-impacts-of-pacific-north-wests-brutal-2021-heatwave
Karen Zraick, Oil Industry Lawyers Fight a $50 Billion Climate Case in Oregon, New York Times, June 26, 2026 https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/26/climate/portland-heat-wave-lawsuit-oil-industry.html
Sjoukje Y. Philip et al., Rapid Attribution Analysis of the Extraordinary Heat Wave on the Pacific Coast of the U.S. and Canada in June 2021, Earth System Dynamics 13, 1689 (2022) https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/13/1689/2022/
Taylor Griggs, Multnomah County Sued Fossil Fuel Companies for Billions.Ā What Happens Next?,Ā Portland Mercury, Aug. 18, 2026 https://www.portlandmercury.com/news/multnomah-county-sued-fossil-fuel-companies-for-billions-what-happens-next/
Debunking Denial 